back
187 comments
As usual, a discussion of bullying which makes no attempt to understand the bullies beyond broad suppositions of demography. Approximately 16 billion words have been written about how bullies are terrible people, etc. etc., yet your condemnations seem to have little effect - what was Einstein's definition of insanity? Try something new.

When you want to harass someone - and let's be honest, you, dear reader, have indeed wanted to harass someone at some point in your life - what do you do? You pick something you believe they will be sensitive to and remind them of it in a mean-spirited way. So, if the bully can tell you're a girl in a male-dominated space, that's what he's going to pick. You may (and problably do) receive this as worse harassment than I receive being called a faggot ("Lol another guy calling me a faggot"), but the bully doesn't need to be a worse person in order to choose to harass you in that way. Both times, it's the exact same guy, and both times, he's just reaching into his insult grab bag. What's he's not doing (necessarily, anyways) by calling you a "stupid slut" is revealing his deep-seated mistrust of women. If you're coming to that conclusion, you're overrating the complexity of the thought process that goes into online harassment. Which is to say, the problem is not what he thinks - it's that he's not.

Would you agree that there's a difference in severity between telling a man "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid faggot" and telling a woman "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid whore"? The latter has much more weight, as at least 1 in 5 women in America will be raped in their lifetime. (edit: 1 in 6 is more accurate http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assau...) It's not an unrealistic threat, and it's much more likely to bring up trauma.
> Would you agree that there's a difference in severity between telling a man "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid faggot" and telling a woman "I'm going to come to your house and rape you, you stupid whore"? The latter has much more weight, as at least 1 in 5 women in America will be raped in their lifetime.

Granting, for the sake of argument, the basic premise that the latter statement would have greater weight if the proportion of women who would be raped in their lifetime was greater than the proportion of men for whom that is true [1], and granting the assertion about the lower bound on the prevalence of rape victimization for women [2], you would need to also provide [3] an upper bound on the prevalence of rape victimization for men that was lower than that lower bound for women for this to work.

[1] Which I would not grant except for the sake of argument, without additional argument for it, because there are a number of problems I see with that premise on its face, but they are secondary to the more glaring problem of the missing comparison.

[2] Which really should be supported by something.

[3] And, as in [2], support.

You're really going to argue that more men are raped than women in America?
Are you suggesting that this hypothetical situation is much more likely to bring up traumatic emotions, or are you suggesting that more women are actually attacked as a result of online encounters? If the former, then I'm not convinced that other peoples' reactions to things that somebody says (over the Internet, no less) should be that person's responsibility. If the latter, then that's quite the claim, and one without a shred of proof from you.
The former. If you're not convinced other peoples reactions to what you say matter, then try making dead baby jokes in front of someone who's had a miscarriage.

As for the latter, I would suggest instead that more women are driven away from the gaming community because of online encounters. People can say "oh just ignore it" or "grow a thicker skin", but with that reaction eventually you'll have a community of just male gamers who don't mind being told they're going to be raped while playing a game.

Yes I would. But I would disagree that that difference is relevant to understanding the problem. In a nutshell, that was the point of my post. Understanding must come first.
Bullies will find a way to harass people, regardless of gender, is your point? I agree with that. The article is trying to point out that the gaming community is hostile towards women. I don't think your point is all that relevant to the discussion.
I am not sure why you think its realistic to take the threat of rape while playing a video game seriously. Do you have any data to back up this claim that it is in fact a serious threat? I am not trying to detract from the message that it is bad but this seems silly.
I'm saying it's more of a realistic threat to women than it is to men. And because of data (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assau...), when it's a women, the likelyhood that the person hearing the threat has been raped is pretty high.
That statistic is complete bunk.

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-in-four-lie...

Sometimes sexual harassment is just harassment.

Many male dominated institutions (the army) are hotbeds of sexual harassment that has nothing to do with desire on anybody's part. It's just an effective way to rattle somebody.

The primary sexism is that any male victim to speak out will be ostracized or further harassed. Thus the bad behavior continues until a woman, empowered to speak out by her gender, becomes a target.

Actually no. This is a specious argument that make men the victim. He specifically called out three instances where women were "empowered to speak out by her gender" and had the roiling mass of manchildren strike back, specifically with more sexual harassment (as well as some of the more mundane harassment).

A guy who tells a girl he's going to do some sexual act to her over an XBox Live chat isn't doing it to rattle his opponent. He's doing it to drive her away.

I think hes saying people who are lashing out are trying to choose the most effective tool at their disposal, I have received many xbox live taunts, "you are gay", "fagget" etc. Because that is what they believe to be the best way to hurt my feelings, it isnt an inherit desire to be homophobic, or in the case of women sexist, but the desire to be hurtful in a way tailored for the intended target.
Why must the entirety of society watch their tongues just to make sure poor little victim you doesn't get mildly offended?

Ignore it, tell them to fuck off, and move on. It's a fairly simple concept really. You are WEAK if some randoms comments in an online video game get you this rattled.

Female privilege allows you to frame a man for rape or sexual harassment even if the man did absolutely nothing.
You don't think there's man-on-man rape in the army? Even if it's "just an effective way to rattle somebody" does that make it any less terrible? Or not worth fixing?
I agree with this article but disagree with the authors choice to not call himself a gamer. Be the change you want to see in the world. Own the label and be "one of the good ones" and eventually you can be proud to call yourself a gamer. At least, that's what I'm going to do.
Oh come on. I can't talk about the others, but Dina Karam had no business being within ten metric AUs of Mighty No.9

She was hired, BY HER OWN ADMISSION, because her bf works for Comcept. The only bit of art she posted was a godawful female version of Beck (the main character) with a lip piercing and lipstick like a companion-for-hire after a busy night. Much better versions were made by fans later, btw. The outcry is because she's completely unqualified at her job. Here's a youtube video summarising the first few days of the disaster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXDSfUJBCj0 .

It's like hiring a dudebro who has only played Madden on the team for a spiritual successor for Ico.

There have been MegaMan games with female protagonists, btw. Of the newer ones ZX springs to mind.

Sorry for the hasty post, I didn't back that kickstarter and it still makes me mad. I went and backed Shantae. At least the designer on that team is a sane woman who knows her craft.

You know what, here's a few representative snapshots from the backer forums. http://imgur.com/a/oUd1p There may be duplicates.
what on earth does her skill as an artist have to do with being a community manager? do you know anything about game development?
Lots of broad generalizations without any stats. I have gamed in the past in guilds with female members, and none of them have been treated particularly poorly.

The anonymity of the internet will always bring out the worst in some, and that is a much more powerful factor than being a gamer.

I think the majority of the trash talking happens with anonymously matched competitions where voice chat is enabled.
I've been thinking about this lately, and I wonder how much of the problem is a result of the games themselves. A majority of games, and almost all "real games" (as categorized by people who identify themselves as gamers), are not only violent, but portray violence as the most straight forward way to resolve conflict.

If someone is truly engrossed in a medium where the default interpersonal resolution method is to "defeat" the opposing party by whatever rules are deemed legal by the system, it's not hard to see why every time that person is provided with an alternate viewpoint it would be met with toxic hostility.

If the only tool you have is a gun or sword, everything looks like a target or monster.

As a side note, I've been finding puzzle and adventure games much more appealing as of late because it's not all about killing other people.

I get that a lot of games aren't about such things, even if weapons and shooting are their medium; but it seems like a few choice games recently have been about that and it's really awkward. The new Killzone is about two racist factions where you basically play the bad guys, for example.

On the other hand, games like League of Legends and Counter Strike may have death, but they have about as much impact as getting shot with a paintball round. It's a way to say 'tag' in an effective way (Counter Strike) , or to push someone out so you can complete your objective (League of Legends), and those are just normal sporting activities.

I don't know. Pardon me while I wave my cane and yell loudly to get off my lawn, but I agree with you about these sorts of issues in recent games.

I agree, but there are problems with dressing up a game of "tag" like Counter-Strike in the clothes of violent conflict. The other day a contractor came to my house as I was playing CS:S. He asked if I was in Baghdad. He translated the Arabic on the walls. I realized he might find this game incredibly offensive. Racially ambiguous terrorists fight whiteish police in often middle eastern locales (dust2...?). The game itself is normalizing or maybe is just an example of normalized, simplistic, xenophobic ideas. It is a game of tag and strategy that you might compare to american football in some ways, but its stylized to attract people interested in participating in this "world" of us vs. them, all conflicts are solved by violence fantasy land that has none of the nuance of real life. Is that a problem? Is it a symptom of some of the attitudes the author talks about re. insecurity and fear in "gamers"?
I see it less being an issue of violence, and more of an issue of conflict being the only means of resolution. It's become so pervasive, that a game where you don't fight or compete against SOMETHING is considered very weird.

As for puzzle and adventure games, have you tried Antichamber or Gone Home? Those two are among my favorite games to have come out this year.

One perspective is that this "real gaming" is like a sport with the physical component completely removed and the players completely segregated. There's zero stress to your cardiovascular system and zero possibility of physical injury due to contact. In other words you're free to run your mouth while enjoying the hormonal surges of high competition in an anonymous setting. I don't think that makes a trash talker a maladjusted social misfit though.
The majority of games are an evolution of sales, if people wanted other games in the majority they would exist in the majority already.
It's not a "gamer" problem, it's societal problem, issues with children/teenagers who tend to gravitate towards games and then have an anonymous mask to hide under. Social norms push men towards, and women away, just as blue is for boys, pink for girls. Obviously the social context for video games is changing, and with that doesn't not come full cultural acceptance, in fact the opposite. With anonymity to hide behind, people will voice their opinions more openly, and without consequence.

The Depression Quest story is not one of misogyny, rather the state of Steam Greenlight, who's "community" has a strong opposition to experimental games, and personal attacks against Quinnzel were simply called misogyny. This is why people dislike the movement. Misogyny and any personal attack on women are not the same. Anything that can remotely offend a woman is not misogyny. Things like the PyCon incident, and ideas like this further damage the movement.

Side Note: The holier than thou attitude through out the whole article is really off-putting. It's extremely prevalent throughout (game/tech industry at least, can't say I read too many other feminist material) feminist articles, and it only hurts the cause. Sarkeesian is the worst offender.

I agree that the "gamers" as defined by the author are a rowdy bunch (for lack of a better term) but I have a hard time understanding the author's motive. Is the article trying to bring a feminist perspective to gaming?

While it would be nice if we could all be respectful of race and gender while shooting at the pixel versions of each other, what problem does it solve? Do we want more female gamers? Is this behavior of immature people anonymously venting or raging harmful to society or to the individual's development?

Games are really one of the few outlets for aggressive behavior in the modern world with zero risk of physical harm. It satisfies competitive urges and requires a variety of mental and physical coordination skills (that may or may not be domain specific). Even if you cleaned up the language used there's always going to be trash talk and new "leet speak" or euphemisms to get around censorship.

It just reads like a half-baked article that lobs a blanket insult at male gamers without any real substance.

You can see a nice list of the costs of gaming consoles with inflation here, http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/the-real-cost-of-gami.... Add in the cost of games at around $50 to $60.

You can do the math, but based of this statement " I’ve owned most of the consoles and handhelds, and I’ve played games on various computers too" I'm going to say he is several grand in, conservatively. I only point this out because it seems to me that gaming is something he actively pursues, if not in time then financially.

I get called a faggot multiple times a game pretty much every time I play online. Usually it's a kid that I'm beating. I don't particularly enjoy that, so I mute the person and talk to friends. It is what it is. I still proudly consider myself a gamer though.

I play all types of games. I do find the harassment tends to come from first person shooters, but it's an aggressive idea to virtually kill someone. For me it's a nice thirty minute way to blow off steam after a long day.

I would like to add that when I hear someone talking to a female player in a sexually degrading way I say something. Others do to. People also get called out for using racial slurs.

There is this odd overlap of adolescence and adults in the gaming world. Kids shouldn't be playing some of these games, but they are, and they act like kids act. Stupid.

Adolescent boys have a long history of doing and saying repulsive things. It's not ok, but it isn't new. My experience is that this behavior is getting better. Especially as we dialogue about it.

I appreciate that he wants to discuss this topic, but the entire piece rubbed me the wrong way.

I think the crux of it is despite being a gamer, the author wants to distance himself while criticizing said "gamers" from his high horse. Also, the author admits to avoiding multiplayer so it's mostly his opinion on secondhand information from female gamers (selected from a pool of the most offensive stuff).

Not saying that etiquette isn't an issue but this article doesn't really advance the cause. However, the way you call out the behavior and setting an example is really the only viable solution.

As an opinion piece I think it does more of a disservice than anything not just with the blanket statements but the author basically does the very thing he's criticizing only in more civilized language, essentially calling "gamers" (of which he conveniently disassociates himself from) a bunch of socially-stunted basement dwellers.
It's great to be aware of social issues, but I find myself disagreeing with the foundation of this article. While online gaming is a very easy way to expose yourself to the harsh realities of prejudice in the world, I don't believe there is a relevant relationship between sexism and games as a medium. Considering the differences between Call of Duty players and Animal Crossing players, I think the studious will quickly recognize that the same differences are identifiable between firing range patrons and a members of a gardening club. Proof-reading that last sentence gives me one thought "well, that's just a no-brainer!" as it should. The gaming community comprises hundreds of niches that have their own personalities and behavior, just as the "television-watching community" does. To draw conclusions about the whole based on behavior of the relative few is offensive to me as a gamer.
I do agree with his sentiment that aggressive games breed aggressive behavior. I am not entirely sure this is bad per say but its pretty obvious? Cant we all be nice and civil to each other while we run around trying to murder each other. I personally do not understand this long running commentary about sexism in games, isnt it just a function of those types of games? If its not sexism, its homophobia or its racism anything to bring your opponent down, Call of Duty is not the sport of gentlemen, its mock warfare.
Is it really the "violence" ??

Have you ever played "Mortal Kombat" at a house party? As super-violent as it is, people generally are pretty chill about winning and losing... as long as its person-to-person.

On the other hand, I've played a game of Chess online once, and after making one or two good moves, I've been called homophobic names before the guy rage-quit on me.

You can take the least stressful activities, and if they're online, you WILL find people screaming death-threats at each other for some insane reason.

I think the online environment makes people somehow susceptible to stress and anger. At least, I personally go online to relax after the day... but with that relaxation... my inhibitions are released as well. I'm an introvert by nature, when I'm in public, I'm keeping tabs on my own behavior, watching what I say and trying to not be an asshole.

But when I'm at home and just browsing the internet, I'm not going to be holding back my words or thinking about other people's feelings. I'm completely tired of doing that all day. Plus, I'm at home, and (mostly) anonymous online. Why should I care about how I look or about other people's feelings?

I know it is lazy, but I'm just trying to be honest. And if anyone disagrees, please tell me about your experience with "Online Chess" vs "In-Person games of Mortal Kombat". I can almost guarantee you, the behavior of online-chess players is probably worse.

The gaming world is a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive, emotionally (and maybe actually) adolescent males who have a deep fear and distrust of women.

The thing is, if you forget about the abusiveness towards women in online games (most people aren't even aware it happens), this is still the prevailing societal view of 'gamers.' Losers who don't get any girls. That's why many don't like to call themselves 'gamers,' or admit to a new group of people that video games are one of their hobbies.

I think it is always a huge mistake to assume people mean the literal meaning of words they use. Im not even sure people using such words in a sort of banter (Im sure I could have chosen a better word there...) environment even think of them as words, more like they are sounds, like a contemporary growl or bearing of teeth replacement.

I mean, when someone says "fuck you", should I take them up on the offer?

Context and delivery is everything.
> The gaming world is a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive, emotionally (and maybe actually) adolescent males who have a deep fear and distrust of women. The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male – and no doubt skew towards the young side. No-one’s surprised by that. I’m not surprised.

Well thanks. Man, I don't even know where to start.

I'm male, 30+, and have been cursed at too. Sure, they didn't tailor their insults towards me being female (because I'm not) but that's just it; online, it's just words. Ignore them. That's what you do.

I've met my girlfriend online, and we've been together for about 5 years now. I've been active in the unreal tournament community, counterstrike, world of warcraft, Utopia, etc. Many, varied.

Sure there are some rotten apples, just like in real life.

Just ignore them, just like you ignore that drunk guy at the cafe that keeps getting close. If you can ignore the beggar on the street, or the street-marketeer, or the adds messing with your movie experience, you can ignore idiots on the web too.

.edit: okay, let me stress that YES this is an issue, but;

1) I take offense to calling the entire gaming world a cesspit of maladjusted, comically aggressive, emotionally adolescent males. I'm a gamer. Calling me the above doesn't put me in a great mood.

2) The site linked in that post has whole posts dedicated to getting the middle finger + the word "bitch". Learn to ignore them damnit.

3) > The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male

- well sure, you're female. Females aren't going to do this because, well, they'd be insulting their own sex?

- well yeah, they're in the majority. In most communities I've been active 90% is male, so chances are 9 in 10 off of sheer numbers alone.

- well of course, females won't approach you in a sexual context because most people are straight.

- well obviously, if there is any discrimination, it'll be practiced by the larger part of the community, vs the smaller part. It just doesn't happen the other way around.

None of these make me respect the writers opinion.

If the point of this article is to piss off the good guys, it's working. Now get the hell off my internet, because you're just as bad as the people sending you nasty messages.

> it's just words. Ignore them.

This advice is pretty hollow coming from someone who doesn't have to put up with constant sexual harassment, who doesn't have to deal with cat calls and the fear of being raped that comes with them, and who can use their real voice on game chat without getting rape threats. Check your privilege.

As I've gotten the opportunity to run some game events or moderate discussion, I have some thoughts about this.

Making a space positive and inclusive is not a magical process, but it means going a lot farther than telling victims to "ignore the noise." It requires the stakeholders to be proactive. They must consider how to moderate the space in such a way that minority voices are protected.

If this doesn't happen, by default, the loudest majority will command the framework and drain points of discussion into fallacious, self-serving thinking like the low-level insults that permeate most online games. It can happen in many ways, shapes and forms(whether the hotbutton is gender, sexuality, politics, race...), but this quality is true of every space I've observed.

> If the point of this article is to piss off the good guys, it's working. Now get the hell off my internet, because you're just as bad as the people sending you nasty messages.

Yeah the guy who's talking about the problem is JUST AS BAD as the people perpetrating the problem.

agreed
It's just words, just ignore him. You don't need to comment about it. Right?
"The problematic gamers are, naturally, almost exclusively male" - Source? If 50% of gamers are women I find this hard to believe.
> Show me an angry man who spews hatred towards someone he perceives as different or a threat to him,

I'm sorry, but this describes you.

And your screed is nothing but unadulterated hate speech.

How is this shit even allowed on this site?